Posted on 11/11/2008 5:38:27 AM PST by Keyes2000mt
Just "one and done" for Barack Obama's presidency? Recall an ominous passage in his otherwise joyous election-night speech: "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term." Maybe the tone was suggested by one of Obama's economic advisers like Jason Furman or Austan Goolsbee. It's the battered economy, after all, that will be President Obama's greatest domestic policy challenge. As such, it will also be his greatest political challenge, too -- but one where failure may already be baked into the cake.
That's right, the "O" in "Obama" may stand for "One Term." For starters, there's a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats' two-election winning streak comes to an end.) And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States -- be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without "Bush" for a last name. Once again a "change" election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.
Here's the political and economic math: Let's assume the current downturn turns out to be as painful as the 1990-91 recession. It's an apt comparison. As Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Gary Stern said earlier this year," The situation we confront today is reminiscent, in several salient ways, of the headwinds environment that prevailed in the aftermath of the 1990-91 recession."
Among those "headwinds" Stern referred to: an imploding real estate bubble, a construction bust, a banking crisis, and a credit crunch. Sound familiar? The nation's gross domestic product fell 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990 and 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 1991. But even after the economy started expanding again, the unemployment rate kept rising until it hit 7.8 percent in June of 1992 vs. a low of 5.2 percent in June 1990. Recall that in January of 1992, President Bush, running for reelection, told New Hampshire voters that the economy was in "free fall" even though the economy was later shown to have grown at a robust 4.2 percent during the first quarter of that year.
See, it takes a while for people to really perceive that an economy has turned around, especially if unemployment is high. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy ("it's the economy, stupid") even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was "getting worse." Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction.
That's right 3 1/2 years after the 1990-91 recession ended, the economy was still weighing negatively on voters and hurting the incumbent political party. Is it so hard to imagine, then, that three or four years from now voters will also be unhappy about the state of the economy and blame the party in power, the Obamacrats?
And then there's this: The 2008-09 recession may actually be far nastier than its 1990-91 twin. Every day, Wall Street forecasts worsen. Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs, expects a jobless rate of 8 1/2 percent by the end of 2009 and drifting a bit higher in 2010 for the biggest cumulative rise in unemployment since the Great Depression. And over at JP Morgan Chase, economists are predicting the economy will shrink 4.0 percent this quarter and 2.0 percent during the first three months of 2009. And on top of all that, you have the $7 trillion of lost national net worth. (Think higher investment and business taxes will help?)
No wonder Obama's political advisers just told the New York Times that they're already fretting about the 2010 midterms. They may also want to worry about 2012. Team Obama shouldn't expect this election euphoria to last four years if the economy struggles and struggles. (Wait until oil prices and interest rates start rising again.)
Obama's election is often compared to that of Ronald Reagan's in 1980. Both gentlemen were voted in to fix an ailing economy. But the 1982 recession took a huge chunk out of the Gipper's popularity. He had just a 35 percent job approval rating at the start of 1983, just two months after Republicans lost 27 seats in the House in the midterm elections. But Reagan's presidency was saved by an amazing economic rebound. The economy surged at a 4.5 percent pace in 1983 and at a mind-blowing 7.2 percent clip in 1984 as unemployment dropped from a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. The Long Boom was underway.
Reagan worked his magic with tax cuts. Obama is trying to do the same with government spending. But stimulus packages are only supposed to keep the recession from getting worse or morphing into a mini-depression. I don't think anyone expects that $500 billion in hot money to return America to prosperity. Only time (and the private sector) can do that, especially with a downturn caused by a credit crisisa and deflating asset bubble. And four years may not be enough time for the Obama presidency to traverse that long road or complete that steep climb.
One term is more than enough time for lasting damage. 29 years later we have yet to see the worst result of the Iranian debacle.
One election at a time.
2010 and the House is the new front line. If Obama is nearly as unpopular as Biden predicts, the House should be all but in reach. Even if the GOP gets close, within 10 seats or so, there are enough moderate Dems that will fear their seats in ‘12 to put an end to the marxist regime. If 1994 is any example, the GOP should be able to fully close the deal and take back the House, with the right (and I do mean right) agenda.
2010 is the line in the sand. 2012 will take care of itself, in due time.
It matters most RIGHT NOW what candidates are being lined out to run in which races in 2010. We need strong candidates in all the marginal races and a new Contract with America.
I haven’t been a fan of Newt lately. But. Maybe he SHOULD be the RNC chief. At least he knew something about mobilizing a national agenda out of local races.
The media is talking about it. It’s a set up for when the start to write critically.
They said the same thing about Clinton. Not going down that road again.
Speaking of which...
Hamas says: They met Obama
advisors in Gaza before election
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3620833,00.html
Last time they will try that! ;)
You mean the swooning will stop in four years? And in the meantime, just how much damage will be done?
The Dems started this many years back with their giveaway programs, their “no drilling” policy, NAFTA and condoningand paying the bills of illegal immigrants. It sent billions of dollars out of the country., I’m not an isolationists...but the USA refuses to ask bums to work...preferring the “slight of hand” reparations programs.
If it is that Obama is indeed a Marxist, which all his history indicates, then it is that Marx's Communist Manifesto calls for a Marxist elected into the leadership of a country to apply the tactics of despotism at this stage of the conversion to Communism.
He has his duty, then it is we have ours. Which does Obama consider is duty? Is it to Communism, or to the ethos of moral Liberty that the Founders espoused?
Works for me.
That will only happen if the opposition defines who he is, all I’ve seen are a bunch of Republican lemmings that play footsie with their enemies.
In a way, if the economic mess causes Obama to be a failure in the eyes of the American public, that will be sweet irony, since it’s his party who deserves the lions share of the blame for the mess.
related....
THE SELECTION OF COMRADE OBAMA By: Lynn Stuter
November 11, 2008
November 11, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Election 2008 is finally over. Most Americans are rejoicing that the endless barrage of nauseatingly stupid campaign ads have finally, I mean finally, disappeared from their television screens. The collective sigh of relief was truly universal no matter the political persuasion.
In a history-making moment, it was revealed to Americans who their next president would be: Barack Hussein Obama. The charade was accompanied by television coverage of people dancing in the streets across the United States.
Many believe he was elected. The rest know he was (s)elected. There have been a few clues along the way; some more obvious than others.
One of the first clues was the attitude of the mainstream media. Their bias toward Barack Hussein Obama has been so obvious as to be in-your-face. There is a lot about Barack Hussein Obama that should have been revealed to the public by the mainstream media were they doing their job. Barack Obamas connections to Marxist organizations like the Industrial Areas Foundation, ACORN, Midwest Academy, Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers were never revealed by the mainstream media; any of them. Nor was the fact that Frank Marshall Davis, poet, journalist, and member of the Communist Party USA, admitted mentor and advisor to Obama, ever touched on by the mainstream media. Obamas association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and Weatherman Underground member William Ayers were downplayed when they should have been investigated and reported on.
Nor has the mainstream media, to this day, reported on the growing concern that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American by birth; also the fact that he was adopted by his stepfather and became an Indonesian citizen; excluding him from eligibility to seek the office of president of the United States. Many people believe the government vetted the candidates for eligibility. But who says they really did; who made sure they did? If anyone in any agency of the United States government vetted Obama or McCain for eligibility, why havent they come forward and said so? A judge in California threw out a lawsuit filed to remove McCain from the California ballot. In his opinion, the judge indicates that the question of eligibility of candidates must come in the form of an objection in Congress at the time of the counting of the electoral votes.
Nor did the mainstream media report on the poll intimidation that occurred on November 4th, one incident of many being in Philadelphia where two black men, dressed in Black Panther attire, one carrying a billy club, were filmed outside a Philadelphia polling place. The intent was obviously to intimidate white voters arriving to cast their vote. Racial slurs concerning “white supremacy” were allegedly made. The Black Panther carrying the billy club was escorted off the premises by police called to the scene; the other one was allowed to stay. This was but one instance that occurred. Were this type of conduct not the modus operandi of organizations like the IAF and ACORN, the SDS and Black Panthers, if they were not the tactics taught by organizations like the Midwest Academy, we could easily say that they dont represent the president elect, but Barack Hussein Obamas affiliations with these organizations does not speak well of him, and does not set well with many Americans.
Read More….
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/thread/1226407888/last-1226407888/THE+SELECTION+OF+COMRADE+OBAMA+By-+Lynn+Stuter
–
**********
R. W. “Dick” Gaines
THE “G” BLOG. @WordPress.com
He will get a complete pass.
EVERYTHING will be blamed on Bush.
Bad economy? The messiah inherited it from Bush, who caused it with his tax cuts for the rich etc.
Terrorist attack? Bush’s fault because the rest of the world is paying us back for our unwarranted aggression in the Middle East.
With the press playing along, this will be a piece of cake.
Obama and “moral liberty” in the same sentence? What do you think? America has voted out “the ethos of moral liberty.”
I agree. The willing press, fellow travelers, and daily rants from the heads of Democrat committees will continue to beat the drum of "It's Bush's fault." Every downturn in the economy, unemployment hike, and failed business will be laid at the doorstep of "failed Bush policies." Then, the GOP will merely sigh and shrug its puny shoulders in defeat...
The media will not allow it. If you think they were sycophants in this last election, they are going to go completely Pravda in 2012. Add that to the Fairness Doctrine and the coming crackdown on the internet, Conservative voices will be muffled by 2012. And here is my “aluminum foil hat” prediction for autumn 2009: committee hearings on Fox News. I know it sounds crazy(thus the aluminum foil hat) but I have a feeling the Dems in Congress are going to overreach and go for the complete control of information. Let’s just say by 2012 you will not be able to use the word “Orwellian” because the Left will consider it racist and hatespeech. In other words, doubleplusungood.
Sorry for posting any optomistic suggestions. How about instead of posting news stories, people just shout at the top of their lungs,"WE'REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOOOOMEED!!!!"
That's the ticket. /sarcasm off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.